Monday, December 03, 2012

To those Catholics – in God’s
foreknowledge – that are currently sliding down the slippery slope to eventual
schism and separation from Holy
Mother Church. May it never be! May God in His grace help you to not do so! May this book be used for that purpose. St. Paul
wrote to the Galatians, whom he dearly loved: “Have I then become your enemy by
telling you the truth?” (4:16). Proverbs 27:5-6 concurs: “Better is open rebuke
than hidden love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend . . .” Proverbs 12:15
informs us that “a wise man
listens to advice,” and verse 9:8 adds: “. . . reprovea wise man, and he will love you.”

Also to my esteemed "traditionalist" brothers and sisters in Christ and His Church. We agree on so much. I am not “against”
you; I am for
you; and most of the time, with you!

We all must strive (with God’s necessary enabling power always)
to be “wise” and not “fools” in the biblical sense.

INTRODUCTION

Some recent encounters on my Facebook page have convinced
me of the need for a second book on the broad topic of radical Catholic reactionaries.
The crucial
and necessary issue of definition and the various titles that get thrown about,
back and forth, will be covered in great detail in the first chapter.

The present volume consists of a
collection of various website or blog papers of mine on three topics:
the radical Catholic reactionary strain of Catholicism ("RCRs" or "RadCathRs" in short), the New (Pauline, Novus Ordo) Mass and its liturgical
abuses, and genuine, orthodox (not silly liberal, “ersatz”) ecumenism: derived
from my three web pages devoted to those topics.

I often hear complaints about why I
"pick on" the errors of the "right" far more than on the
errors of the "left". It’s because I think theological liberalism (or what calls itself "progressivism") is
fundamentally an intellectually dishonest enterprise, whose proponents pick and
choose what they like and dislike from among Catholic dogmas: thus losing the
gift of supernatural gift of faith altogether, as St. Thomas Aquinas and
Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman have both stressed.

The dissident spirit is simply
watered-down, half-baked agnosticism, or (in another sense) pseudo-Protestantism
(insofar as it exercises unchecked private judgment, espouses doctrinal
relativism, and rejects binding Church authority). At least atheists and
agnostics and Protestants usually try to be, and are, honest with themselves
and self-consistent. I know I always tried to be so, as an evangelical Protestant for thirteen years.

For this reason, I have never
paid theological liberalism or "Catholic" modernism much attention in
my wide-ranging apologetics (though I have devoted half a book to it, and one small web page). Even as an evangelical Protestant apologist in the 1980s, I
rarely dealt with Protestant liberals in my work. I detest these false notions;
have nothing but intellectual contempt for them (while trying to love the
persons, as I should).

I strongly believe that radical Catholic reactionaries, on the other hand, know better. These are Christians with genuine faith, who want to
be observant and faithful Catholics, for the most part, but they have been
misguided and misled and bamboozled by various errors of the nature of what is
called "rigorism" -- or what might be described as a
"puritanical" outlook. It’s a matter of degree, and there are many
variations.

This recurring problem throughout
Church history is seen in groups such as the Donatists, Montanists, Jansenists,
and the Old Catholics who left the Church after Vatican I: an error of thinking and
out-of-whack perspective; an inability or unwillingness to think with the Mind
of the Church, and a lack of charity. It’s often characterized by gloom and
doom pessimism and difficulty in taking a “long view” of history (caused by
ignorance of past Church history). Radical Catholic reactionaries are also
particularly prone to absurd conspiratorial notions (as well as anti-Semitism).

Despite these serious errors, I
think that many in this extreme category may, perhaps, be able to be persuaded
through (orthodox Catholic) reason and presentation of clarifying fact. I have
received many reports informing me that my first book on the topic swayed people
(by God's grace, always) away from this dead-end and quasi-schismatic mindset.
It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that a second book might be used by God
to accomplish that same end result. One can only make an attempt.

The devil loves to divide the
Church and pull away folks who otherwise would be faithful, zealous Catholics, living
according to traditional Catholic morality: into lonely corners and isolated
backwaters. We see the same tendency in conservative politics, with many people
pulling away, playing the "independent" game and engaging in
third-party fantasies and pipe-dreams: with the most zealous "true
believers" among them allegedly better and "purer," more
principled than the rest of us.

Human nature never changes. What
the devil gains so often with lust and lack or loss of faith on the theological
or ecclesiological left, he gains with spiritual pride and Pharisaical “holier-than-thou”
legalism and tunnel vision on the right. He is constantly at work dividing
Christians and even Catholics (orthodox ones) against each other: “divide and
conquer.” This allows the world to keep going to hell in a handbasket, becoming
more and more immoral, cruel, and secularized all the time, while we endlessly
fight and squabble with each other.

But this book is not mere (and
yet more) wrangling; it is an orthodox Catholic "answer" to the
errors and falsehoods dealt with: a proposed “roadmap” for the way out of the morass and despair, so that
the in-fighting and faulty thinking and lack of charity towards multiple
millions of fellow Catholics can lessen, not increase and continue
indefinitely.

My
position (as I wish to make crystal-clear from the outset) has always been that
people ought to be freely allowed to worship as they please (at whatever form
of Mass they prefer), with the sanction of the Church. I held this view before
the declarations promoting wider availability of the Tridentine Mass: not only
of Pope Benedict XVI (in 2007), but the earlier ones from Blessed John Paul II
as well. It's always been my position since I became a Catholic in 1991.

From
that same year I have attended the Novus
Ordo Latin rite, which is performed at my parish in downtown Detroit in a very
reverent, traditional fashion, with no abuses that I have ever seen. We receive
Holy Communion at an altar rail, on the tongue. This is what I do every week.
We don’t have altar girls; rarely even have eucharistic ministers (but then, we
have small numbers).

Those
issues can be discussed pro and con on various levels. I’m simply describing my
own parish (where I have chosen to worship nearly my entire Catholic life):
what we believe and practice, and in so doing, showing that I have no problem
at all with traditional Catholic worship (which I dearly love). That’s not what
this book will be critiquing. It will, rather, critique radical views that seek
to “bash” the New Mass as profoundly “inauthentic” or vastly inferior Catholic
worship.

My
parish is one of only two that I know of in metro Detroit that offers the Tridentine Mass
(every week in one of the three church buildings). I have attended it in my own
church several times. I love it; it's fantastic. I myself prefer the Novus Ordo Latin Mass.
If the choice is between a corrupted or scandalous Novus Ordo Mass (that is, not performed as it is supposed to be, according to the
rubrics) and the Tridentine Mass, I would choose the latter in a heartbeat.

I don’t
have to make that choice in my own parish, or “give up” any reverence or
solemnity in the Pauline Mass that I personally prefer. I understand that,
unfortunately, many millions feel (given the fact of widespread liturgical corruption)
that is the stark choice they face. I enthusiastically support the choice of
the Tridentine Mass in such sad situations (or as a choice for anyone, anytime, if they should so prefer). If we “vote with our feet,”
maybe we can see much further liturgical reform and a renewed emphasis on
reverence and solemnity “on the ground.”

As
with my first book on the topic, I will not “name names,” because my goal is to
critique the various false beliefs and bad tendencies, as opposed to getting
into all the “legalistic” wrangling back and forth, and personal offense, and stepping
on the toes of folks who are fond of various persons or organizations. Such a
practice (not naming specific names) follows the example of most (if not all)
of the Tridentine decrees, that didn't name Luther or Calvin or other
Protestant leaders; they simply corrected the errors and proclaimed Catholic
truth: defining faith and justification and other doctrines that were being
redefined or rejected by the new Protestant movement.

Whether
or not a particular error is present in a given person or group is for the
reader to discern and ascertain. I am communicating truth as I believe it to
be, and critiquing errors, in line with the Mind (as far as I understand it) of
Holy Mother Church. This is my task and grave responsibility as a lay apologist
and teacher. I am happy --as always -- to
be corrected by priests and bishops in that Church, as the case may be.

Hello Mr. Armstrong,Years ago someone recommended your work to me. I plan to purchase your basic book on Biblical evidence for Catholicism.I am thinking of converting from Anglicanism through an Anglican-use Ordinariate. I am sympathetic to traditional ways and a lot of the blogs I read feature posts by traditional Catholics. I think they are all in Diocese-approved Latin Mass parishes not sedevacantist or SSPX. They tend to be critical of either Vatican II or at least of the practice of much of the clergy and laity since the 1960’s. I have read some of your posts on radtrads. My question is: Do you have general principles for helping me to understand how far one can go in criticizing Catholic faith and practice since the 1960’s and still be a good Catholic? I have internalized many of the criticisms I have read over the years. I want to understand if these criticisms are legitimate or if they will place me (upon conversion) in the “radtrad” category. And if they make me a radtrad and I cannot let go of them, then it COULD obviously mean that Catholicism is not for me and I need to recognize this now.I’m trying to think of examples so this question is not so abstract. One example is whether or not the Church itself can sin. Some traditionalists say no, but some claim that Vatican II says “yes.” Part of my thinking that has helped move me towards Catholicism has been to see the Church as distinct from the people that make it up – more than the sum of clergy and laity, that is. So I’ve tended towards a position that the people of the Church can sin but the Church cannot. By thinking this would I be violating the Church’s (ordinary) teaching authority as expressed by Vatican II? Another example: many disagree with the Church’s current position on the death penalty. Is one free to privately disagree with this position and still be a good Catholic? Also, can one criticize the new mass (or at least the general lack of Catholic piety that seems to be common at new mass parishes when compared to old mass parishes) while still agreeing that it is legitimate? Does such criticism go to far.Just trying to understand how far one can go in criticizing the practices of the Church and/or its clergy. Do you have any general principles so that I can apply them to various examples not limited to the ones I give above?Thanks,Bruce B.

I am thinking of converting from Anglicanism through an Anglican-use Ordinariate.

Excellent.

I am sympathetic to traditional ways and a lot of the blogs I read feature posts by traditional Catholics. I think they are all in Diocese-approved Latin Mass parishes not sedevacantist or SSPX.

That can be a very mixed bag. If I had to choose between recommending visiting these sits and not doing so, I'd say don't do it, because the negatives often outweigh any benefits.

They tend to be critical of either Vatican II or at least of the practice of much of the clergy and laity since the 1960’s.

Yep.

I have read some of your posts on radtrads. My question is: Do you have general principles for helping me to understand how far one can go in criticizing Catholic faith and practice since the 1960’s and still be a good Catholic? I have internalized many of the criticisms I have read over the years.

The general principle for a young Catholic is to accept and receive with faith and obedience, the magisterial teachings of the Church. In their most basic, accessible form, these are found in the Catechism. For more depth, there are the Vatican II documents and papal encyclicals and other talks.

After five or ten years as a Catholic (should you become one), then you can understand better, specific instances where disagreements may be taken, with all due respect.

I want to understand if these criticisms are legitimate or if they will place me (upon conversion) in the “radtrad” category. And if they make me a radtrad and I cannot let go of them, then it COULD obviously mean that Catholicism is not for me and I need to recognize this now.

I have laid out basic definitions of "radtrad": what I believe is unacceptable for a Catholic, in my book (above), in the Introduction and first chapter: both online.

I’m trying to think of examples so this question is not so abstract. One example is whether or not the Church itself can sin. Some traditionalists say no, but some claim that Vatican II says “yes.”

Depends on what you mean by that. People make up the Church, and people sin all the time. We believe that the Church is protected from error when binding all the faithful to a theological dogma or moral teaching.

Part of my thinking that has helped move me towards Catholicism has been to see the Church as distinct from the people that make it up – more than the sum of clergy and laity, that is.

So I’ve tended towards a position that the people of the Church can sin but the Church cannot. By thinking this would I be violating the Church’s (ordinary) teaching authority as expressed by Vatican II?

No; as long as you don't hold that the magisterium can "sin" when binding Catholics to teachings.

Another example: many disagree with the Church’s current position on the death penalty. Is one free to privately disagree with this position and still be a good Catholic?

Yes, because it's not an absolute. Capital punishment is not intrinsically wrong, as abortion is, and the pope has allowed states to make their determinations. I have a post about it:

Also, can one criticize the new mass (or at least the general lack of Catholic piety that seems to be common at new mass parishes when compared to old mass parishes) while still agreeing that it is legitimate?

We can criticize a lack of piety, because that is a fault of people, or application, or an abuse. We can't say it is invalid, and I would say that much of "traditionalist" criticism of it crosses a line that Catholics ought not cross.

Does such criticism go to far.

Yes; I've tried to explain why in recent posts on the topic.

Just trying to understand how far one can go in criticizing the practices of the Church and/or its clergy. Do you have any general principles so that I can apply them to various examples not limited to the ones I give above?

Did that above. If you become a Catholic, the guiding thought shouldn't be "what can I criticize?" but rather, "how much treasure I have found that I didn't know of before, and how much I can learn!" It doesn't make sense of me to come into a new belief-system or environment and start right in blasting it.

I think the Catholic faith is far deeper than that, and this is the problem I have with so many "traditionalists." It's a negative, reactionary, destructive, uncharitable spirit so often.

Thank you for the response Mr. Armstrong. That is an excellent point about not going into Catholicism looking for things to criticize. As I said, I have internalized many criticisms. Your advice may help me to keep them in perspective and to discard some of the more questionable ones. I didn’t specify this but just to be clear, most of the criticisms I have read have been on general websites dedicated to culture and politics (that happen to include contributions by traditional Catholics) and not on sites dedicated to discussions of Catholicism and anti-Catholicism. I think I am missing a lot of background when it comes to your arguments with radtrads. I also want to be clear that I am not considering converting ONLY because I can do it through an Anglican Ordinariate. Rather I am an Anglican now and so I would go into the ordinariate for certain practical reasons (existing relationships with the ordinariate clergy, a “smoother” transition for our children, etc.). I have no misunderstanding that I would be accepting the jurisdiction and authority of the Catholic Church.

One more topic if you have time Mr. Armstrong. About the ordinary form of the mass. As you know many traditional Catholics do not like the ordinary form. I do not understand all the supposedly less than desirable characteristics. I know of a couple of things that bother me about it. One is the presense of female acolytes and women distributing the cup. As far as I can tell, this is not heresy so I can accept it as legitimate even if it isn’t my cup of tea. Is it ok to state why I have a strong preference against these practices though?Also, I don’t much like that the people don’t kneel before they take sacrament. This is more serious for me. If Jesus appeared before me, I’d probably fall on my face. I’d at least be on my knees. It seems to me like the practice deemphasizes the fact the Christ is literally present before us and makes the error of not discerning the Lord’s Body more likely. I don’t think that the mass is invalid because of this. I will try to attend the extraordinary form when I cannot make it to the Ordinariate but as you can imagine, most parishes around me only use the ordinary form.Also, I haven’t read this criticism in a long time but I can remember criticisms that the priest facing the congregation during the consecration deemphasizes the sacrificial aspect of the mass and suggests that it’s all about the people. I don’t understand this criticism very well though.I also suspect that there’s more piety and orthodox practice at parishes offering the extraordinary form than the ordinary form. If this is true, I don’t know that this is a result of the form of the mass. It could just be that serious Catholics are frequently drawn to the extraordinary form. But is it wrong to note this?At some point, to fulfill obligations on Holy Days, I will probably have to attend the ordinary form. Bearing in mind your advice not to go into Catholicism looking for things to criticize, I want to know if my objections are reasonable? I suspect that the best thing for me to do would be to try to attend my Ordinariate mass as much as possible and to seek out the (licit) extraordinary mass when I cannot attend the ordinariate.

Again, thank you for your generosity with your time. I am a father of six so I know how busy you are.

Altar girls have been permitted, but Blessed Pope John Paul II made it crystal clear that this is not a prelude to women priests. I don't have a problem with this, myself, but I understand why some object, and my parish never uses them.

Eucharistic ministers are greatly overused, as I have written about, and sadly, many parishes appear to ignore the "rubrics" regarding their use only with great crowds. Our parish never uses them. I've also written about preferring to receive Holy Communion from a priest.

I agree about kneeling, before receiving Our Lord. When receiving standing up, the Church teaches us that we need to make some gesture. My parish has communion rails and we receive on the tongue. But it should be noted that the leading practice in the early Church was receiving standing up, in the hand. Therefore, I don't think a case can be made that it is intrinsically irreverent or spiritually inferior to do so.

I also agree about which way the priest is facing. In our parish, he usually faces the altar, but some priests face the congregation. I don't think it's a huge deal, but I like the symbolism of the more traditional practice.

You will, no doubt, want to attend the EF if you can, should you become a Catholic.

I don't think lack of reverence is due to the OF itself. Rather, I would say it is simply a matter of people doing what everyone else does, around them. These practices or lack of reverence have simply surrounded the Pauline Mass, whereas the TLM, because of its relative rarity, has brought together Catholics who are particularly concerned about solemnity, propriety, and reverence, and preservation of traditional practices and gestures.

Now that the pope has made it very clear (in 2007) that both forms are sanctioned by the Church and spiritually beneficial, anyone can worship as he or she chooses. There are also 21 other rites in the Church.

I have been told that the Church explicitly teaches now that Muslims and Catholics worship the same God. Is this a belief that I can disagree with and criticize without violating the ordinary magisterium teaching authority?

Very clear defense and it seemed quite reasonable to me.I searched for articles at your site about Pope JP II kissing the Koran (as you know, this is frequently criticized by traditionalists). I saw links to three articles but articles one and two were not available. Maybe the links need updated.Can a Catholic believe that something like this was bad judgement by the Pope since it does not represent any sort of authoritative teaching?

Catholics can believe that a pope acted imprudentially. The problem is that the "traditionalists" who go on and on about this incident have to make sweeping judgments of what was supposedly in JPII's heart, his motivations, supposed indifferentism about doctrine, etc.

In other words, it quickly becomes a scenario of slander against the pope, based on something he did that a person doesn't like, and thinks is harmful.

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

Dave is basically the reason why I am the knowledgeable and passionate Catholic I am today. When I first decided in college to learn more about my Catholic faith, I read all of the tracts at Catholic Answers ... but then I needed more. I needed to move beyond the basics. Dave was the only one who had what I needed. I poured over his various dialogues and debates and found the answers to even the most obscure questions. His work showed me that there really is an answer to every conceivable question of and objection to the Catholic faith. That was a revelation for me, and it is one I will never forget. My own apologetical style (giving point-by-point rebuttals, relying heavily on Scripture, and being as thorough as possible) is influenced very heavily by his, and to this day I continue to learn and grow a great deal through his work explaining and defending the Catholic faith.

--- Nicholas Hardesty (DRE and apologist, 28 May 2015)

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.

I know you spend countless hours writing about and defending the Church. There may not be any American apologist who puts in more labor than you. You've been a hard-working laborer in the vineyard for a long time.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

--- Richard Olsen (Evangelical Protestant), 26 November 2012.

Dave writes a powerful message out of deep conviction and careful study. I strongly recommend the reading of his books. While not all readers will find it possible to agree with all his conclusions, every reader will gain much insight from reading carefully a well-crafted view that may be different from their own.

--- Jerome Smith (Evangelical Protestant and editor of The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge), 26 May 2015 on LinkedIn.

I think it's really inspirational, Dave, that you pursue your passion and calling in this way, understanding that it's financially difficult, but making it work anyway. You and I don't agree, but I have to respect the choice as opposed to being some sort of corporate sell out that may make decent money but lives without purpose. You can tell your grandkids what you did with your life, whereas some corporate VP will say that he helped drive a quarterly stock price up briefly and who cares? It's cool to see.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).